The pope's regnal name: What it is and why it matters
The Brief
A new pope is expected to be elected by the College of Cardinals during a secret conclave beginning May 7 at the Vatican.
Upon election, the new pontiff will choose a regnal name — a centuries-old tradition that carries deep symbolic meaning.
The chosen name often honors saints or previous popes and signals the new pope's priorities and theological stance.
LOS ANGELES - The Catholic Church is preparing for a historic transition following the death of Pope Francis on April 21, 2025. His funeral is scheduled for April 26, and Vatican officials announced that the conclave to elect his successor will begin on May 7.
The conclave — a secret gathering of the College of Cardinals under age 80 — will be held inside the Sistine Chapel. There, the 135 cardinal-electors will vote in seclusion until a new pope is chosen by a two-thirds majority. The moment will be marked by white smoke from the chapel chimney and the traditional announcement: Habemus Papam — "We have a pope."
Once elected, the new pope's first major decision will be selecting a regnal name, a symbolic choice that will set the tone for his pontificate.
Why regnal names matter so much
Big picture view
While there are no formal rules requiring a new pope to choose a particular name, the tradition dates back nearly 1,500 years. It's considered one of the most significant early acts of a new pope's reign.
"It's the most important decision he'll make, and signal to the world his tone," Allen Sánchez, executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently told Axios .
Names often honor previous popes, Catholic saints, or religious themes. They can suggest continuity with the past, a desire for reform, or a return to traditional doctrine.
FILE - SSC Napoli owner Aurelio De Laurentiis presents a personalized jersey to Pope Francis during the "Eco-Educational Cities" conference in Rome on May 25, 2023. (Photo by ANDREAS SOLARO/AFP via Getty Images)
Possible names and what they would signal
Experts say the name chosen could offer early clues about the new pope's priorities:
Francis II : Signals continuity with Pope Francis' focus on the poor, climate change, and interfaith dialogue.
John XXIV : Echoes Pope John XXIII, who launched Vatican II reforms — a possible sign of modernization.
Leo XIV or Pius XIII : Points to a more conservative approach emphasizing traditional doctrine.
Paul VII: Suggests engagement with modern issues while holding firm on moral teachings, similar to Pope Paul VI.
Throughout history, the name John has been the most popular, chosen by 21 popes. Names like Gregory and Benedict have also been popular. Out of reverence, no pope has ever dared to adopt the name Peter II, honoring the church's first pope, Saint Peter.
Could the next pope choose a completely new name?
What we know
Pope Francis himself broke tradition by choosing a new papal name in 2013, honoring St. Francis of Assisi. The next pope could similarly select a never-before-used name to make a bold statement.
Some possibilities floated by experts include:
Oscar I : Honoring St. Óscar Romero, signaling a strong commitment to human rights and social justice.
Martin VI : Referencing St. Martin de Porres, patron saint of racial harmony and marginalized groups.
Maximilian I : Honoring St. Maximilian Kolbe, a martyr of Auschwitz — a powerful symbol for free speech and resistance to oppression.
Jude I: Highlighting solidarity with the marginalized and signaling a stance against antisemitism worldwide.
What we don't know
The new pope's personal inspirations, cultural background, and theological priorities will all influence his choice — but those remain completely unknown until the name is announced. Vatican watchers can make educated guesses, but no one outside the conclave will know his decision until the traditional "Habemus Papam" moment.
And while the next pope may choose a bold, symbolic name, he could also opt for continuity by choosing a familiar one from the church's long history.
How conclaves and papal names evolved
The backstory
The tradition of conclaves — from con clave, meaning "with a key" — began in the Middle Ages to emphasize the cardinals' seclusion during papal elections.
Modern conclaves are governed largely by rules established by St. John Paul II in 1996, with key updates from Pope Benedict XVI. Under current rules, a two-thirds majority is always required, even after multiple rounds of voting.
The custom of selecting a papal name became common around the sixth century. The first pope to officially change his birth name upon election was John II in 533, due to his given name, Mercurius, having pagan roots.
Today, the name the pope selects is seen not only as a personal statement but also as a global message about the direction of the Catholic Church in the years to come.
The Source
This article is based on Associated Press reporting about the conclave's timing and procedures analysis by Axios on papal naming traditions, background information from Encyclopedia Britannica on conclave history and Vatican announcements regarding Pope Francis' funeral and the conclave.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden Weaponized Law Enforcement Against Catholics
Even the initial story about the FBI targeting Catholics for suspicion and surveillance was bad enough. In December 2023, the House Judiciary Committee published a detailed report about how the FBI specifically identified traditional Catholics as potential domestic terror threats. The House report revealed the shocking finding that the Richmond, Virginia, office of the FBI suspected traditional Catholics "as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of 'threat mitigation." In sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate, former FBI Director Christopher Wray was challenged by Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri: "Now we know that, in fact, FBI agents did approach a priest and a choir director to ask them to inform on parishioners." Despite this serious allegation, Wray denied a wider FBI initiative and blamed a localized mistake in Richmond. Well … new information reveals that, at best, FBI Director Wray was playing fast and loose with the truth. At worst, the then-sitting chief law enforcement investigator of America committed perjury when he dishonestly stated that the memo was "a single product by a single field office." Oh, all while completely maligning the largest denomination of Christian believers in the United States. But, alas, the sad story of the FBI targeting Catholics does not end in 2023. New information uncovered by Sen. Charles Grassleys committee reveals that the so-called "Richmond memo" was more like a nationwide all-points-bulletin from FBI brass, informing legions of agents to suspect and investigate faithful parishioners across the land. As CatholicVote describes, "the FBIs anti-Catholic Richmond memo was distributed to more than 1,000 employees in FBI field offices across the country." Sen. Grassleys press release states that a whistleblower "produced at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology and relied on information from the radical far-left Southern Poverty Law Center" to target Catholics. Amazingly, such harsh anti-Catholic actions formed a key policy agenda for Joe Biden, a politician who constantly trumpeted his Catholic bona fides and bragged about the rosary he carries in his pocket. Of course, those pronouncements did not stop him from targeting the Little Sisters of the Poor for brutal Department of Justice intimidation when he was vice president. Nor did Joes faith restrain him as president, when he awarded Americas highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the late Cecile Richardson, one of the most prolific abortion providers in U.S. history. Unfortunately, Bidens anti-Catholic actions follow a tragic trend of recent decades for Democrats, once the proud home to generations of Catholic voters across America. In fact, Bidens eventual vice president, Kamala Harris, engaged in brazen anti-Catholic bigotry as a U.S. senator in 2018. Harris tried to derail the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher simply because the district court nominee dared to belong to the Catholic fraternal charity organization, the Knights of Columbus. I wrote about that prejudice - an unconstitutional religious litmus test - in a December 26, 2018, opinion piece for RealClearPolitics. No wonder that during the 2024 presidential race, then-Sen. JD Vance called the Biden-Harris White House "the most anti-Catholic administration in living memory." Which brings us back to the present day and these newfound facts about the breadth and scope of the anti-Catholicism of Bidens FBI. This targeting fits within a larger context of the completely unacceptable politicized weaponization of federal law enforcement by people like Biden, Harris, Wray, and former Attorney General Merrick Garland. Sen. Grassley makes it clear that he believes Wray lied under oath. If that allegation is correct, then the Trump-Vance DOJ must charge Wray. In addition, this issue carries great political peril for Democrats and big continued rewards for Republicans. Historically, Catholics decide national elections. For over half a century, the Catholic vote has determined the winner in every election but one (choosing Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000). In 2024 Trump rolled up an incredible +11% margin among Catholics nationwide, a giant improvement over his tie among Catholics in 2020. In fact, Trump would not have won the popular vote - surprising every "expert" - without his dominant performance among Catholics. So, lets get to the truth, punish the evildoers, and reap the political spoils as well. Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
